The leaders of two Canadian polygamist groups are defending their "marriages" by referencing the nation's 2005 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, reports the Associated Press.

So we all know what's coming next. Shrieks and howls from the Christian hate groups about how the legalization of gay marriage leads to the legalization of polygamy - JUST LIKE THEY SAID IT WOULD.

A couple of things.

First of all, I'm not against polygamy. Pretty much simply because I'm not a judgemental asshole. However, unlike gay marriage, and for the sake of the arguments that will be presented by the anti-gay hate groups, there are some serious social consequences to the legalization of polygamy.

Other things being equal [male to female ratio] (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.

[snip]

The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy's inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.

Also, remember that the comparison itself is fallacious. Same-sex marriage is about marrying 1 partner, polygamy is about marrying additional partners.

Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

-"Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."-"Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."-"Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".-"Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Dr. Ron Jones, senior pastor of Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Va., has written anopen letterto the new president.

"We will pray that God will grant you Solomon-like wisdom in all of the decisions you make."

And what is this "Solomon-like wisdom" like, you ask? Well it goes a little something like this:

1 Kings 11:3"He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray."_______Feel free to read the whole chapter. "God" never condemns his polygamous liaisons, just the idolatry it lead to.

Bundy tells Dr. Dobson: "There are lots of other kids playing in streets around the country who are going to be dead tomorrow and the next day and the next day and next month, because other young people are reading the kinds of things and seeing the kinds of things that are available in the media today."

"Sadly, Bundy was right," Dr. Dobson said. "Pornography has been found in the possession of almost every killer where sex was the motivation."

Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action, said Bundy's predictions have come true.

"Porn has moved from the hidden vice of a few to the entertainment of the masses," he said, "leaving in its wake countless addicted individuals, broken homes, sexual crimes and a nation desensitized."

Ah yes, it’s all about the evil P and V.

See a P, or a V, or a P in a V, and one is instantly inflamed with the desire to kill.

Clearly, people who have actual sex lives must be murdering up a storm without our knowledge.

But fortunately, the glorification of violence on TV and in movies is perfectly harmless, and should never be construed as an expression of sexual frustration - in men.

Leave it to Dr. Dobson to elicit wisdom from a serial killer: Sexual repression is the solution to violence.

This month IN THE LIFE explores the power of religion to shape our lives, worldview, and our political convictions... providing spiritual guidance and comfort, but often used to promote intolerance and hatred of LGBT people. Looking at the intersection of religion and sexuality, we see how gays and lesbians reconcile their faith within their religious communities.

In God We Trusted

Believing that homosexuals have no place in the Christian church, evangelical ex-gay ministries, such as EXODUS, have been established around the country to re-program LGBT people to make them heterosexuals? often with tragic consequences.

Michael Billy, Host: In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declared homosexuality no longer a mental illness. In response, by the late 70’s, ex-gay ministries were established around the country, and soon after, throughout the world, by evangelical Christians.

Believing that homosexuals have no place in Christianity, groups like Exodus attempt to reprogram LGBT people to make them heterosexual. Often, with tragic consequences.

Many who leave these programs find themselves alienated by their church and their families, and even, the gay community itself.

[Intro Montage]Newscaster Cynne’ Simpson: A battle is underway in Atlanta, that some say pits sexual orientation, against faith.

Rev. Dr. Mel White, author, co-founder Soulforce: The ex-gay movement is perhaps the most dangerous movement to the gay community, that there is.

Pat Robertson: The average homosexual male is not gay and happy, there is a dark cloud that’s there.

Melissa Fryrear: We offer hope, to people who are living homosexually, who may be dissatisfied.

Wayne Besen: These groups offer promises they can’t deliver, and deliver disasters they never promised.[End montage]

Wayne Besen, Founding Exec. Director Truth Wins Out: All the power houses in the religious right are behind this. Jerry Falwell, when he was alive, Pat Robertson highlights their testimonies on the 700 Club, and of course, James Dobson and Focus on the Family are really the nexus, the nebula, of all things ex-gay.

Michael Busse, Founding member Exodus International: The repetitive message is always, you are broken, you are damaged, you need to be fixed. And I think that’s a very destructive message.

Narrator: The ex-gay movement, a movement based on the notion that through prayer and hard work, gay people can become straight, took off in the mid 70’s, with the formation of Exodus International.

Michael Busse: The year after the first Exodus conference in 1976, we began getting hundreds--thousands of letters, gay and lesbian folks from all over the country and outside the country that had heard about us somehow. We took it of course as a sign that we were doing God’s work, that for it grow that fast, it meant that it was definitely God’s idea.

Narrator: Quickly however, some former leaders of Exodus, began to see that no one was truly changing, but many were truly suffering. 31 years after founding Exodus, Michael Busse and other leaders came together to offer a public apology for their role in the movement.

Michael Busse: Not one of the hundreds we counseled ever became straight. Instead, many of our clients began to fall apart. One young man in our program got drunk and deliberately drove his car into a tree. Another fellow leader of the ex-gay movement told me that he had left Exodus and was now going to straight bars looking for guys to beat him up. He explained that the beatings made him feel less guilty, he was atoning for his sin. One of my most dedicated clients, Mark, took a razor blade to his genitals, slashed himself repeatedly, and then poured drain cleaner on the wounds -- because after months of celibacy he had a “fall.”

To those people I may have harmed by my involvement in Exodus, I am truly sorry.

Narrator: The damage wrought by the ex-gay movement was never so apparent, than at the first ever ex-gay survivor conference, held in Irvine, California in 2007. The same weekend that Exodus was holding their conference across town.

Peterson Toscano, Co-Founder, Beyond Ex-Gay: A good friend of mine--lesbian ex-gay survivor, we’d been talking about our own experiences for the past few years on our blogs, and various forums on line, and we’ve had the chance to unpack our stories, but so many people don’t get that chance. So we thought, you know, we need a place for people to unpack these experiences for themselves.

Supportive Preacher: You don’t have to change. They do.

Mel White: The suffering that comes out of the ex-gay movement, is considerable.

Vincent Cervantes, ex-gay survivor: For me I realized, growing up in a Christian home and just being in a Christian institution, that it wasn’t ok to like someone of the same gender.

Dan Gonzales, ex-gay survivor: The ex-gay movement then told me that same-sex relationships were false, that they inherently disordered, that they were destructive, that they were abusive.

Peterson Toscano: We did the 12 steps, an intensive 12 step program, except instead of looking at alcoholism, we looked at our addiction to homosexuality and compulsive sexual behavior.

Vincent Cervantes: I went through exorcism, and it was terrifying.

Christine Bakke, Co-Founder, Beyond Ex-Gay: There are these demonic powers and presences that you’re going to have to, sort of fight against with the help of Jesus.

Mel White: And that leads to a kind of desperation, that leads to suicide.

Vincent Cervantes: It threw me into a point then where I no longer had hope. That if not even an exorcism can get rid of this, then nothing ever will, so I planned a suicide.

Peterson Toscano: The thing that has amazed me, is all the collateral damage I’m seeing from the ex-gay movement.

Mel White: I tell ya, this ex-gay movement is not benign, it is very very dangerous.

Patty Ellis: If you try to change your child you will lose your child. You will break their spirit, and you may never get them back.

Suicides:

Robbie Kirkland, 1982-1997: Shot himself in the head after a 4 year struggle with homosexuality.

Bill Clayton, 1978-1995: Took massive overdose.

Marcus A. Wayman, 1979-1997: Shot himself.

Narrator: While the ex-gay movement, fueled by the religious right, has proven devastating to many individuals, the ultimate goal, may be to destroy any political advances by the gay community.

Wayne Besen: This is not about changing gay people. This is about changing laws that would protect us from discrimination.

Mel White: The ex-gay movement really comes out of fundamentalist Christianity, and fundamentalist Christianity believes in the literal Bible, and if you take the Bible literally, it seems to say that gay and lesbian people are making a choice that’s bad. And if they’re making a choice that’s bad, then why should they have any civil, let alone religious rights?

John Hagee, anti-gay preacher: We need a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, that guarantees that in America, the only marriage to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and a woman. There are so many things in America that have changed, that should never change. And you listen to me, if it does, you can kiss this country goodbye.

Mel White: And so there you have a real conundrum for gay people who are needing and deserving of those rights, but being told by religion gone political, that they can’t have them.

Narrator: Yet while the ex-gay movement shows no sign of going away, their messages are being challenged like never before.

Supportive Preacher: The church has been wrong and wrong and wrong on this issue, and it’s time for us to make a change.

Wayne Besen: For the first time ever, we’ve got a variety of organizations, from Truth Wins Out, to Beyond Ex-Gay, and Soulforce, and many others, having a laser-like focus on exposing, what I believe is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people. A multimillion dollar fraud.

Darlene Bogle: God loves all of us, just as He created us.

Wayne Besen: We’re going to get stories out there, we’re going to be exposing some of their leaders, this may enter the legal arena.

Shirley Phelps: If this lawsuit is going to work, then why don’t they file a lawsuit against the Lord their God.

Wayne Besen: It will be around, because there are people who are desperately want to believe this, however I think the credibility is going to be eroding over time, slowly slowly slowly.

Fox newscaster to Shirley Phelps: I don’t know what planet you’re from, but you say you thank God for (ID’s?), you thank God for 9/11, you thank God for dead soldiers, thank God for AIDS…I thank God that you are not a leader of a real church.

Narrator: And for those still struggling with faith and sexuality, Reverend White has one thing to say.

Mel White: I’ve talked to gay people who’ve been out of the closet for 50 years, and still wonder, can you be gay and Christian? Isn’t that sad? The saddest question in the world, is can you be gay and Christian?

I would like to ask you to stop and think about the pain your words and attitude towards me, are causing myself and those I love. When my family hears individuals such as yourself, compare me to pedophiles, can you stop and think for a moment about the pain inflicted, when you cause them to think about me in such an ugly context.My father can no longer show me his love as he once did, because his church teaches him that my sexual orientation is act of choosing to live a sinful lifestyle. But I’m the same little girl that used to lean against his side, on so many Sunday mornings. He believes my salvation is in question, and I know that must make him incredibly sad. It hurts me to know I am causing him sadness. We no longer talk like we once did, there’s a wall between us now, because he believes I chose to be gay.

My sexual orientation was not a choice for me, Pastor Warren, no more than your sexual orientation was a choice for you. Can you understand the spiritual violence that you are inflicting upon me and others? If I were your daughter, would you still say I was the equivalent to a pedophile? Would you still use your Bible to condemn and reject me as an unrepentant sinner? Would I still not be welcome as a member of your church? Can you accept me, just as I am?

Sincerely,

Tracey Zoeller

~~~~

Mitchell Gold: An open letter to Pastor Rick Warren

Announcer: Mitchell Gold, author of “Crisis.” Forty stories revealing the personal, social, and religious pain and trauma of growing up gay in America.

Mitchell Gold: Dear Pastor Warren,

I’m Mitchell Gold, founder of an organization that works to help people understand the harm caused to gay teens and adults, and their families and friends.We recently delivered to you a collection of personal stories from individuals who speak to you about the harm caused, when religion based bigotry and prejudice is used to justify rejection, condemnation, and discrimination, to gay Americans. You’ll find additional stories in a copy of my book “Crisis,” which I have also sent to you. I hope you will take the time to read them.

Pastor Warren, the issue is not about denying gay Americans the same rights as other Americans enjoy, although that is certainly something that for which we very strongly advocate. And the greatest harm does not come from you saying we shouldn’t marry. What causes so much pain, is when you say we are inferior, and when you look upon us as unworthy to share the same rights as others. More damaging is when you promote such rejection and condemnation, as the right thing to do if you’re a person of faith.

We’ve been down that road many times before. People of faith once were taught that rejection and condemnation, toward women, people of color, minority religious groups, or interracial couples, was the right attitude for them to hold. We know today those past examples of religion based bigotry and prejudice, have been proven wrong.

As you’ll recall, the Southern Baptist Convention, your Christian denomination, formally apologized to people of color on June 20th, 1995, for their role in the horror of slavery and segregation.

Why is that pastor Warren? I hope you can agree that it was because Americans of all faiths, realize the harm that was being done to those individuals targeted by such bigotry and prejudice. The pain felt by a young African teenager when saw individuals and institutions look upon him as unworthy and inferior, is the same pain, that millions of young gay teenagers feel today, when you say they are unworthy, inferior, and unfit to be fully welcomed by their family, friends, coworkers, or church. And make no mistake about it, your words do that.

Pastor Warren, I am sincerely and respectfully asking you place on your heart, the immense pain that is being brought to bear in the lives of gay Americans, in the name of traditional church teaching. It is my hope that you will come to understand that such harm can no longer be justified, and have the fortitude, to join others, including those in your own faith community in calling for its end. It’s important for you to connect the dots of the history of discrimination in America. I call upon you to say that religion based bigotry has no place in the soul of your church, or in America.

Respectfully,

Mitchell Gold

~~~~

An open letter to Pastor Rick Warren

by Dr. Rodney N. PowellFormer Civil Rights Activist

Dear Mr. Warren,

I am certain that you are aware of harm and history of religion based bigotry in the U.S., particularly related to black Americans, women, and homosexual Americans today, of all races and ethnicities. Therefore, I must assume that you do not care about the negative consequences of religion based bigotry, and the devastating social and psychological harm done to the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. Especially vulnerable teenagers, who are just beginning to discover and understand sexual orientation and sexual identity.

Your religious beliefs and attitudes that cause you to be intolerant of the lives, opinions, behaviors, and identities of gay Americans, is not the issue. This issue is the actions you and others take regarding these beliefs. I steadfastly support your right to hold these religious beliefs, including your belief in the inerrancy of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. However, your religious beliefs do not give you the right to oppress gay Americans, and encode your religious beliefs into customs, and codify them into laws that deny justice, equal civil rights, and first class citizenship to other Americans. When you seek to force your views and intolerance on others, you are no different from racists, segregationists, sexists, anti-Semites, and other bigots throughout America’s history of religion based bigotry.

Dr. King, vigorously and harshly, challenged and rejected the acceptance of institutions and persons who advocated and advanced religion based racial persecution, and its resultant bigotry and hate. It is astounding to me, and I am certain, to other former student leaders of non-violent protests, during the civil rights movement, such as congressman John Lewis, that you will deliver the keynote address at the Martin Luther King commemorative service, at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

Mr. Warren, I do not believe Dr. King would find your spiritual leadership unifying, and I am certain he would not find it to be part of his vision for America, of the beloved community.

I suppose you will say you motive is to honor or please the god you love, however, I must ask whether attitudes and actions derived from misunderstanding, and bigotry, and deeply hidden prejudices please your god. Does it honor your god when innocent persons, especially teenagers, are devastated by words of condemnation and rejection.

Emmet Till and Matthew Shepard were innocent victims of hate and bigotry, and their deaths are directly related to such words spoken by religious leaders.

What I do know, as someone who learned the meaning of justice from Dr. King, is that both religion based bigotry and political expediency that exploits it for votes, perpetuate hate and injustice. And both, miserably fail Dr. King’s vision of the beloved community.

Mr. Warren, your pastoral leadership would not please Dr. King, and it certainly does not honor him.

Faith In America is a nonprofit organization that works to educate Americans about the harm caused by religion-based bigotry and prejudice.

Several weeks ago we began collecting examples of that harm as it exists in the lives of gay Americans, their families and their friends. Most are from people who have experienced the pain of rejection and condemnation but some are straight allies who, like more and more Americans, understand why it can no longer be allowed to flourish in our society.

We hope you will take the time to read these examples and open your heart to an understanding of why we can no longer allow religion to be used in a way that exacts such a horrific human toll on the lives of so many Americans.

Early on in the book they establish for the reader that our love is fake. But they do so in a roundabout way by placing our love for our partners in the same category as love for parents, children, friends, coworkers, athletes and soldiers.

Because after all, just coming out and saying we're too dumb to know the difference between those kinds of love and actual romantic love might come across as anti-gay.

My favorite part was in Chapter 5, where they warn that gay marriage would create “strong dissention in the homosexual community” between “married gays from gays who don’t want marriage.”

Yes, you heard that right. They actually state that one of the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, is to ensure that all we gays get along. How thoughtful of them.

They offer the same drivel when it comes to non-supportive family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc., who might be invited to a gay wedding, “they will be forced to have a confrontation” and “the relationship will suffer.”

They also use the Dutch Study and The Male Couple to show that gay couples are too slutty to be good parents, and apparently, gay people can “change.”

Glenn Stanton is a propagandist and a fraud, who is willing to lie in the name of Jesus for political gain.

That said, he was on the Dr. Phil show the other day, AGAIN. But right now I'd like to explore his performance on the show last fall.

Dr. Phil: Are you aware that less than 20% of transgender children grow up to be transgender adults, how do you feel about that?[skip]Dr. Phil: Joining us today is Glenn Stanton, he’s a research fellow with a Christian based organization Focus on the Family. He studies gender as a social phenomenon, and is currently working on a book that deals with the importance of gender and parenting. He says we are not born this way. He says parents are responsible for guiding their children into the gender they were born with.

Did I summarize that correctly?

Glenn Stanton: Pretty closely, Dr. Phil. What we find is that kids start out as kids, they don’t know. Most little boys have never been a man before, most little girls have never been a woman before. They need help figuring these things out, and it’s the job of the parent to come in, as you did, with such a loving heart, and to care for your child, but to guide them and direct them. The children are not in the driver’s seat, they’re not the ones that are at the age and the maturity to be able to make these kinds of decisions, so we need to help them move in the right direction.

Dr. Phil: So you disagree with Dr. Seigel saying that, because you talk about ‘born as,’ but what Dr. Seigel is saying, is that that is defined by the brain, as well as the external genitalia. How do you respond to that?Glenn Stanton: I’m actually agreeing with him in a way, that there’s a spectrum, but it’s not--we don’t, there are very few real Pats in the world, where we just don’t know what they are. Either we start out one way or the other and we identify in a particular way, but we always identify as either a girl or a boy. We can always determine, ok that’s girl behavior or boy behavior.

For my little boy wanting to go to art museums, for me wanting to go to art museums, is that feminine behavior? For you being interested in ballet, is that a feminine behavior? No, it can be done in a very masculine way.

Dr. Phil: Are you saying these parents are wrong?

Glenn Stanton: From what I understand, I mean you’ve taken an entry level psychology course in college. You gave your child a test on the internet about what it means to be transgendered, and your child mimics really, as I see it, some very adult concepts that she got from somewhere, and so I’m wondering, you know, who’s leading and whose following.

Melissa: Your idea of thinking, is what ends up happening to these transgender children, is that they grow up depressed, they grow up suicidal, they get into drugs, into prostitution, and it’s wrong. And you know what, what these-these, what he’s stating, it’s actual fact, it’s scientific fact. Where’s your facts?

Glenn Stanton: There are plenty of facts, I mean, Dr. Kagan at Harvard, who has looked at this issue for a long time, 40 years, longer than anybody else, he says what parents need to do with these gender confused kids is be very directive with them, and be the parent, step into the scene. And he says when these kids develop a good solid healthy gender identity, they become more confident, more secure. When they don’t know, they…

Melissa: He was becoming less that every time we tried to push him into being a male. Every time we tried to say, you know what, this is what you--you were born a boy, so you have to dress this way, you know, you can not wear these clothes to school, you can not wear these clothes at home, you cannot wear these barrettes, he was becoming more depressed.

Glenn Stanton: A three year old child, they don’t know what they think at this point, or they have very strong opinions about who they are. When I was that age, I wanted to be a horse, you know?

Melissa: At three years old, she wasn’t dressing like a female though.[skip]Glen Stanton: ‘completely agree in terms of meeting the child where they’re at, but here’s the problem of the spectrum. You know, if the child wants to be artistic, creative, even do ballet, you know what, encourage them in that, but to do it in a masculine sort of way.

You think, what does that mean. It’s very simple, parents know what that means, but the issue of like--I mean it breaks my heart when I see your son go to school with earrings, knowing what’s going to happen to him.

Mary: He doesn’t understand, because he doesn’t have a child going through this. There’s no way you could understand.

Glenn Stanton: My point is that our job as parents are to protect our kids. So I’m agreeing that it’s the parents’ part to come forth and be the leader there and say, you know what son, you wear a bra to school, certain things are going to happen. First of all, you shouldn’t be doing this, I understand your heart, I understand your interest, but I’m the adult.

Melissa: That’s not true. That’s not true at all.[skip]Dr. Phil: Glenn, you would be dead set against this hormone?

Glenn Stanton: Absolutely, and I think the name David Reimer is a very interesting one, in that, you know, he was this little boy that they tried to raise as a girl, and with hormone therapy, he is--grew up into an adult and killed himself, because he was being raised different from what his gender was.

Dr. Dan Seigel: That is a perfect example of a misrepresentation of science. Because if you look at that whole issue, and we can’t--don’t get into the details, it’s kind of upsetting. But what happened was that that person had a brain that developed as a male, and just because he had an accident that had them remove his external genitalia, they tried to raise him as a female.

Glenn Stanton: It was the science of the time.

Dr. Seigel: Exactly, for the biology that you’re disagreeing with. It actually supports the view that brain development is really what determines things. You’re arguing against yourself.

Glenn Stanton: But the point of--it was science at the time that directed them in this direction. And that’s the important point to say is that science is not necessarily the answer to everything. It does guide us in wrong directions, and it did with David Reimer.

Did you see what he did there?

Throughout the video Stanton argues in favor of forcing transgender children to be brought up as their physical gender, or what they feel to be the "opposite" gender.

He then attempts to validate that position with an example of someone who was FORCED to be brought up as the opposite gender -- with tragic results.

It’s a common Focus on the Family trick. Equate something innocuous, like same-gender attraction, with something malicious, like theft or murder, and then condemn them both the same.

In this case he's equating a healthy transgender situation, with a tragedy that he labels as bad science.

There was nothing scientific about it, a heterosexual boy was given a vagina and raised as a girl. The results were predictable. Just because they weren't foreseen at the time, by doctors, doesn't make it science.

But, via Glenn Stanton, we've now established that medical malpractice passes for science, and we can now freely condemn any science behind transgenderism, to conclude that everyone who is transgendered is just plain ol' confused.

Look, you may not get transgenderism, and you may not accept the science behind it, but at least know the difference between science, and not science. And realize that any "expert" who doesn't know the difference, is not an expert.

And Dr. Phil, to give a platform to an employee of a hate group like Focus on the Family, to spew his anti-transgender tripe, is criminal.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Dr. Phil: Well, the world is changing, science is changing, there’s just no question about that. We’re learning more, but is it all helpful? What we’re going to do is put up links about this transgender issue, so you can go and hear both sides. And don’t just go to the side that you agree with, go to the side that you don’t agree with. Read, hear, see what they have to say, so you can consider everything and make an informed decision. You know I clearly have stayed on neutral ground here, because what I want to do is advance the dialogue, advance the debate. So I know I’ll hear from you on the message boards.

Do me a fave, Dr. Phil and try this one on for "size.":

Transcript:

Wayne Besen: Truth Wins Out went to Salt Lake City to interview Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. Diamond says the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, known as NARTH, distorted her research on human sexuality. NARTH manipulated Dr. Diamond’s work to say that people can choose to change their sexual orientation. Her work said no such thing.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The women who I’ve studied, have experienced changes in the way that they characterize and experience their sexuality over time, are quite clear about the fact that they don’t experience those changes as willful. And if anything, sometimes they actively resist them. So the notion that they’re chosen simply because there’s variability, is simply isn’t consistent with what I find. If NARTH had actually read the study more carefully, they would find that that isn’t supported by my data at all.

I started my study, I knew that it was potentially controversial and I knew that it was potentially open to distortion. I have bent over backwards to make it difficult for my work to be misused, and to no avail. When people are motivated to twist something for political purposes, they’re going to find a way to do it.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a message for NARTH’s co-founder, Dr. Nicolosi, for distorting her work.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a few words to say about so-called reparative therapy.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The APA has found that the majority of these therapies are being misrepresented, that therapists are saying, we can change your orientation, when in fact all of the data, all of the data, suggests that that’s not the case. Sometimes they’re successful at helping people to change their behavior, just like any of us can alter our behavior at will, but they say that the attractions, the same-sex attractions will disappear, they don’t.

These therapies are marketed inaccurately. They don’t actually have the effect that the therapists claim that they will have, and they do additional damage, by using these sort of aversive techniques that leave people feeling greater shame, greater guilt, feeling worse about themselves as a result. So they do, do harm.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond said she would like if NARTH stopped using her research.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: My choice would be that they don’t use it at all. If there’s any upside to this at all, it may be that it actually introduces some people to real science, on these topics, which can give them a lot better information, than the non-science that is being perpetrated on a lot of these websites.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond urges scientists to speak out when the research is distorted.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: There are a lot of scientists who would say, you know what, I just produce the data and then how it’s used is not my problem, but I think knowing that we have a culture that actually treats scientific findings very seriously in terms of support for public policy, that would be inappropriate. We have to be very vocal about what constitutes an unscientific use of the data, and that’s why I think it’s important to speak out.

I’m pretty accustomed at this point to the fact that these sorts of distortions will occur. My hope is that by doing something like this, we can hopefully have a more scientifically literate society, and sort of consumer culture, that will get better at recognizing distortions when they occur, and will not simply take the citation of a scientific paper as evidence that that paper has been appropriately used. My hope is that readers and thinkers in general will take a look at the sorts of work that’s presented on NARTH, and say well, maybe I better look at that work myself before I take at face value, what they are telling me that it says.

Wayne Besen: If you are a scientist, and your work has been distorted, misrepresented, cherry-picked, or misquoted by the right wing, contact TruthWinsOut.org
--
And just in case you didn't quite catch the impact of it the first time, Dr. Phil, Let’s listen to the most pertinent part of that interview again:

Dr. Lisa Diamond:“Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.”

Still wanna play the “neutral ground” card, Dr. Phil?

Remember, the Google is your friend.

Oh, and PS, all that just scratches the surface of Nicolosi's ethical meanderings. And I haven’t even gotten to the slitherings of Glenn Stanton yet.

And for posterity's sake, one for the road. This is my favorite anti-gay moment of all time. I've watched this dozens of times and it still cracks me up. He's standing there, calmly nodding his head to what the interviewer was saying, and then suddenly, without warning, he just walks off camera in a huff of a hissy-fit.

Hi, my name is Peterson, Peterson Toscano. I am an ex-gay survivor. I spent 17 years and over $30,000 on three continents attempting to de-gay myself, and straighten myself out---eventually came to my senses and realized that it was not possible, nor necessary, or particularly helpful to attempt to so drastically alter my sexuality.

But in the years following, people would often ask, well why did you do it? What was it all about? And my immediate pat answer was, ‘cause I’m a Christian. And my belief was that one could not be gay and Christian at the same time. So I figured in order to be a good Christian I had to eradicate the gay part of me.

And so I spent all this time and energy and money do it, thinking I was doing it for Jesus, and for the Church, seemed like a very noble pursuit, in my mind, and I was very much affirmed by the people around me.

But since that time I’ve had a lot of opportunity to reflect on what I did, and why I did it. And I’ve begun to compile a list of the other reasons, the hidden reasons, the ones really fueling this-this drive, this quest to straighten myself out. And I’d like to share with you some of the reasons why I tried to de-gay myself. They’re in no particular order.

The desire to marry, and have children, very strong. Twinned with that was a fear of loneliness as I grew older. There was AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases, that I assumed I would get if I came out gay. I had lots of misinformation of what it meant to be gay. I had this strong desire to fit in with everyone, to feel normal. I felt pressure from society to virtually every film, TV show, pop song and commercial, that proclaimed the heterosexual life was the idealized norm, without showing any other alternatives.

I saw many negative portrayals of gay people in the media, as well as lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. I had the fear of physical and verbal attack for being gay, and I witness physical and verbal attacks for those who were gay, or perceived to be gay. I felt strong desire to advance in the church hierarchy, to become a missionary or a pastor in a church that made it very clear that you could not be gay and serve God. I had the desire to please family and friends, and I had the fear, of losing, family and friends. I didn’t see any positive gay role models in the world.

I had some sexual encounters, and it cause me a lot of distress, because I lived in a society that punished sexual deviants, and I felt that I was being deviant, because everyone said it was so wrong. Well interestingly enough, an addiction to credit cards, never seemed to bother me in a society that encouraged debt. I had unresolved sexual abuse issues, that cause me to carry my abuser shame with me, for years. Thus leading to question my own sexual orientation and self worth. I had a low self esteem, and a great deal of self hatred and internalized fear of all things gay. And I had cowardice. Cowardice to stand against the tide, and to simply be myself.

For years I bowed to other people’s will. I begged and I pleaded God to do--to do something that, is fruitless to pursue. It was for me, and it cause me a great deal of harm, that took years to begin to recover from.

Ultimately I did come to my senses, and I came out. And I have been coming out as myself, and what I’ve discovered was that there’s so much life. There’s so much power, in integrity, in authenticity, and in fearlessly, pursuing honesty.

Friday, January 9, 2009

This was one of my absolute favorites -- pre-blog days -- I actually read this in paper form. (From the Onion):

By Ellen DunstApril 2, 2003

As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war. But it is another thing entirely to do it during a war. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood. We must remove the boxing gloves and put on the kid gloves. That is why, in this moment of crisis, I should not be allowed to say the following things about America:

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Al Mohler: The movement to normalize homosexuality won a huge victory last year when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Lawrence v. Texas. In that momentous decision, a majority of justices struck down the Texas sodomy laws as unconstitutional, declaring that individuals have a basic right to define their own existence and sexual lifestyle without government interference.

As if complaining about the "horror" of allowing gays the right to self determination wasn't bad enough, he then goes on to say:

These days, anyone who would oppose homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle is depicted as a narrow-minded bigot and described as “homophobic.”

Well, let's see now, do you think that Al Mohler's need for the so-called "right" to throw gays in prison to be homophobic bigotry?

I personally find claim to such a "right" to be barbaric, far beyond homophobia and bigotry.

Or perhaps Christ Community Church thinks that such barbarism is acceptable if done in the name of Jesus.

Again, via Al Mohler:

The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because the Bible has a distinctive message. Faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that the Church hold to the biblical witness.

What is that Biblical witness that the Church should adhere to, you ask?

Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention, argues not once, but twice, in favor of God's Leviticus 20:13 command to murder all gay persons on Earth:

For instance, some argue that Paul’s references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to “non-committed” homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious — and argue the ridiculous.

And:

As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.

Leviticus 20:13If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Such is the "morality" of Albert Mohler and the pastors and staff of Tucson Arizona's Christ Community Church.

You can find the first part here, which ends with a quote from the end of chapter 9:

To the homosexual, as to all others, we must speak in love, never in hatred. But the first task of love is to tell the truth, and the sign of true hatred is the telling of a lie.

And with that, on with chapter 10, The End of Friendship: How Sexual Confusion Has Tainted Friendship Between Men.

(It never ceases to amaze me how these anti-gay hate mongers love to portray homosexuality as an exclusively male phenomenon.)

He begins with the example of Brokeback Mountain as representing "something new in mainstream America---a celebration of homosexual romance on the big screen.”

Anthony Esolen, professor of English at Province College in Provincetown, Rhode Island, warns that this breakdown of the natural sexual order has lead to the death of friendship---particularly to the death of male friendships.

Get this, Mohler then actually claims, through Esolen, that “words like love, friend, male, female, and partner” have been “transformed in a new sexual context”, intentionally by “pansexualists” “in order to normalize sexual confusion and anarchy.”

He then goes on to assert that these mainstream depictions of affection between gay men, now makes heterosexual male bonding virtually impossible without the suspicion of it being ‘a gay thing.’ And that male bonding “requires an uncomplicated heterosexual expectation,” part of which, he also claims through Esolen, requires “The stigma against sodomy…”

He all but says outright that gays should be forced back into the closet, along with any expression of gayness, anywhere. This chapter makes it abundantly clear that Al Mohler’s America has no room for gay Americans to publicly express themselves in any way shape or form, lest we corrupt the conceptual idol of the all powerful male -- who’s testicles would invariably shrink to the size of peas at the thought of two men kissing as they shriek in holy horror like school girls running to their mamas for the reassurance that they truly are indeed still men.

The worst part, and most egregious offense of this chapter is when he attempts to equate the so-called consequences of "normalization of homosexuality," as described above, with the consequences of the normalization of incest -- as all familial relationships would then come under sexual suspicion.

First of all, the comparison itself is a lie. The implication is that sexual attraction to one’s family members, is the same as sexual attraction to one’s gender. It’s the same as the anti-gay comparison that equates same-sex desire with the desire to commit adultery. The attempt here is to equate the desire for a partner, with the desire to cheat on one’s partner. Same principle with the incest comparison, except with a gratuitous stomach churning slant.

Furthermore, there are very cogent reasons for stigmatizing incest. The family -- which the anti-gay right is so fond of touting as the backbone of society -- is supposed to be the one place of safety for children. Turn affection between family members into suspicion of sexual desire, and all expressions of love and support become suspect. Leading to a perpetual state of insecurity as a child, and resulting in an adult who is incapable of trust.

Either Al Mohler is an extremely stupid person, or is just jumping on the anti-gay bandwagon to make LGBT Americans out to be fiendish ghouls in the public mind, who are worthy of all that God’s contempt has to offer.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Promotional Video for the Protest DOMA National Rally to be held at city halls everywhere in the United States at 1:30pm EST/10:30am PST. The LGBT community is protesting the Defense of Marriage Act and urges President-Elect Barack Obama to repeal this act.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

I’ve transcribed the Rick Warren intro and the relevant part (emboldened) at the end of his segment.

Charlie Rose: Rick Warren is here, he’s the author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” It has sold 21 million copies, had become the best selling hardback non-fiction book, in US publishing history. He is also the family pastor of Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, California. It is one of the country’s largest and best known churches. Today it has 80,000 people on its roster, and 20,000 people attend service each week. He has also trained pastors from all over the world in his “Purpose Driven Church Strategy.” I am pleased to have him at this table for the first time.

Rick Warren: Thank you Charlie, it’s good to be with you, I’m a big fan.

[Skip to 23:15]

Rick Warren: There are three things that changed my life, Charlie, four years ago. All I wanted to do was pastor one church for life and train other pastors and I had determined that I was never going to go on television or the radio, put our services on, because I didn’t want to be a televangelist. I think always being in the spotlight blinds you. And then three things happened.

First, my wife got a real heart for people dying of HIV/AIDS. And she began to realize--and right after that she got cancer. The more she began to talk to me about it, the more it grabbed my heart, and I thought, ‘how did I miss this?’ The number one killer of people under the age of sixty, in the world, is AIDS. People don’t know that. In America, the face of AIDS is a white gay guy. But really the face of AIDS around the world is a black or brown woman. More women have AIDS than men. And actually more children have AIDS than homosexuals do.

And so as she began to talk about it, it began to grab my heart too, and so I went with her to south Africa. She was going to Mozambique [?], in South Africa, because we were trying to learn from the Africans, how to do ministry to people with AIDS. I taught--I did what I did, I train leaders. We did a three day seminar, and we broadcast to 400 sites across Africa, trained about 80,000 lay leaders and pastors, and I thought, ‘that’s why I’m here, good work,’ -for a week.

But then I said, take me out to a village. And so they took me out to a village, I said, ‘I want to just see a typical church.’ We go out to this village and the jeep and it’s 75 people meeting in a tent, literally, that’s all they’ve got. They don’t have a building, they’ve got a tent. And it’s 50 adults, and 25 kids orphaned by AIDS. And this little church is caring for these children, they’re growing a garden to feed them, doing a little school there, [the] kids are sleeping in a tent. And I thought, ‘this church is doing more to help the poor, than my mega-church.’ And it just rocked my world.

Charlie Rose: Okay, so you come to this realization, how did you move from, ‘this is going to change my life,’ to action?

Rick Warren: Well I went back and I began -- I’m a pastor, so obviously I start reading the Bible, and I start the Gospels over and over, ‘what did Jesus do? What did Jesus do?’ And I realize two things. First, five things Jesus did, were the antidotes to the five biggest problems in the world.

He Planted a church, he said “I will build my church.” He Equipped servant leaders, spend three years discipling the disciples. He Cared for the sick--he Assisted the poor, he Cared for the sick, and he Educated the next generation. And I could go into that in detail, but they’re the antidotes to these five problems. Then I said, ‘How did you do it? You wouldn’t have left us without a strategy. And I found the answer in a passage in Matthew 10 and Luke 10, where Jesus sends his first followers out, and he says this--there’s a whole list of things to do which I don’t have time to go into, but one of them, he says, “When you go into a village, you find the man of peace.” Find the man of peace. There’s a man of peace in every village, in every government, in every business, in every church. I’ve found them all around the world.

And so I said, ‘What is the man of peace?’ He said, ‘When you find the man of peace, if he’s open and he’s willing to work with you, you bless him and you start your work there. If the guy’s not open to working with you, you dust the dust off your shoes and go to the next village, because you can always someone to work with.’ The man of peace is open and influential. By the way, it doesn’t have to be a man.

Charlie Rose: I was going to say…

Rick Warren: Could be a woman. Might be the woman of peace, might be the elderly grandmother of the village that everybody knows.

Charlie Rose: Right, right, so you find them and if they’re open..

Rick Warren: And here’s the other thing, the man of peace does not have to be a Christian believer. Could be Muslim, could be Jewish. Because, Jesus said--when Jesus said “find the man of peace,” there were no Christians yet. Jesus hadn’t died on the cross, there was no resurrection. He just saying go out and find somebody to work with.

Here’s an interesting thing, when I go out and I start telling people, ‘do you want to work with us on poverty, disease, AIDS, illiteracy, injustice?’ I often find people are more unwilling to work with us, than we are willing to work with them.

In other words, we’re saying, ‘You don’t have to change your beliefs for us to work with you.’ If you can only work with people that you agree with, then most of the world you’re ruling out, okay? I don’t insist that a Muslim change his belief for me to work on poverty. I don’t even insist that a gay person has to change their beliefs, they’re not going to accept my belief, or I’m not going to accept theirs.

But I just met with the president--the co-founder of ACT-UP. Eric Sawyer. And I said, Eric, how can I help you get your message--I know you care about people who are dying, how can I help you get your message out? He said, ‘Use your moral authority.’ I’m working with these guys. And so, I’m looking for a coalition of civility, which means let’s get back to the original meaning of tolerance.

Tolerance used to mean, I respect you even though I may totally disagree with you, I’m going to treat you with dignity and respect, and we can dialogue and let’s see what do on the split. You don’t have to compromise, I don’t have to compromise, let’s work on the 80% we agree on, okay?

Today tolerance means all ideas are equally valid. Well that’s nonsense. It’s just illogical. And so if we could get a coalition of civility going, I would love--you know Wilberforce, there’s a movie coming out on this next year, because it’s an anniversary of the man who lead the abolition of slavery. And one of his goals was what he called the reformation of manners. We need a Wilberforce in the twenty first century.

Charlie Rose: Well said. Thank you for coming, I hope we can do this again.

Rick Warren: I would love to do it sometime.

Charlie Rose: Rick Warren is all the things that he has said, and he is also the leader of a very strong church and has written a book, and other books that have had a tremendous, not only sales, but also influence.

So does that mean he's willing to work with incest lovers, polygamists, and child molesters too?

Isaiah makes an interesting observation about homosexuality: “The look on their faces testifies against them” (Isa. 3:9). Have you ever noticed most homosexuals have a certain look that is reflected in their eyes? The King James Version describes it as the “shew of their countenance.” There are a number of theories as to why that is so, but the fact is undeniable. As a rule, homosexuals cannot totally disguise themselves because it is reflected in their eyes. Jesus said:

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

This helps explain a number of things regarding homosexuals. Though they love to be portrayed as gentle, caring, and sensitive human beings, do not be deceived. Many homosexuals can become very violent and appear to have no hesitancy to inflict property damage or even bodily harm to anyone who would dare to disagree with them. Scenes of the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston quickly come to mind. Police officers in every major city in America can testify to the level of violence homosexuals can an will inflict.

A few things.

1) If you click on the link for Matthew 6:22-24, you’ll find that a small, but important portion of that quote has been left out:

22"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Now, why on Earth any Christian would want to hide the fact that they worship the money they make by spreading unwarranted hatred for gays, through lies, and in God’s name, is simply beyond me.

2) He gave no footnote, or any other identifying criteria in regard to the alleged 1992 RNC incident.

3) To think that one non-contextual incident 16 years ago is ample evidence that same-gender attraction -- in and of itself -- causes violent behavior, says WAY more about you, Rick Scarborough, than it does about homosexuals like me.

And as far as that noticeable evil-eye trait that all we gays supposedly share, I’m sure that advice will come in quite handy for unscrupulous anti-gay bigots like you.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

From the book's introduction:

This book is an attempt to look at many of today’s most controversial and troubling issues concerning sexuality from the perspective of biblical Christianity. Every one of us has a stake in this, and Christians are responsible for a special witness to the meaning of sex and sexuality.

In the spirit of psychological projection, Mohler quotes from J.R.R. Tolkien -- the famous Lord of the Rings author: “The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject”.

As we shall see, it isn’t so much that sex is Mohler's the devil's favorite subject, but homo-sex.

Tolkien warned, because human beings are capable of almost infinite rationalization in terms of sexual motives. Romantic love is not sufficient as a justification for sex, Tolkien understood.

He goes on to say that Tolkien “argued that men are not naturally monogamous,” and that for men, monogamy was a “‘revealed’ ethic,” the result of Christianity, and remains the only hope of controlling the unrestrained sexuality of “fallen man.” Mohler describes Tolkien’s understanding of human sexuality as that of “deep moral insight.”

The word “moral” is used throughout the book. Moral insight, moral scrutiny, moral context, etc. And true to anti-gay form, no explanation is ever given as to how human sexuality can be a matter of right and wrong.

Chapter 2 attempts to paint the “secular view” of lust as being “sexual pleasure for its own sake,” and then clarifies that:

The Christian worldview finds congruence with [philosopher Simon] Blackburn on this essential point---that lust is best described as a desire for sexual pleasure as an end in itself.

It is then explained that sexual desire -- within the Christian “God’s gift” context -- is meant as a carrot of sorts, to goad us toward the monogamous confines of an offspring-producing marital union, and concludes with: “Christianity alone can explain why lust---and sin in every form---is so deadly.”

Chapter 3 is pretty much more of the same vacuous ambiguity, except this time, it’s the contrasting Christian view.

In it he quotes from Joshua Harris, Senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Mohler says, “As Harris sees it, the problem [of struggling with sexual impurity] is deadly serious.”

Mohler continues:

When addressing lust, defined as an illicit sexual desire, the chief difficulty we face is in defining the distinction between lust and a healthy sexual desire. […] The essence of lust is the enjoyment of the illicit desire, the pleasure of temptation prolonged. […] The deadly problem of lust arises when the sex drive is directed toward something less than or other than the purity of marriage. […] Lust is not only a vice, it is a sin that ignites other sins.

So, so far the “danger” of lust that makes it a “sin” and a “moral” issue, is the fact that it might distract you from getting married. Though the words “morality” and “danger” were peppered throughout, I really could not find anything more to those chapters than that.

Fortunately, however, there is some redemptive value to it all in Chapters 4 and 5, which deals with the wiles of pornography.

He speaks of how pornography has been “so mainstreamed” in our culture, and acknowledges that it is mostly a “male phenomenon,” and how in essence, it “celebrates the sensual in at the expense of the spiritual.” But then, again, ends with how this “corrupts the idea of marriage.”

Keep in mind that all of this is being said within the context of, and with phrases like “God’s design, God’s gifts, God’s plan, God’s image, God’s glory.” So I imagine that Mohler and his audience are putting much more stock and worth into, what so far, has been little more than an attempt to portray their own infantile view of human sexuality as being superior to that of we reality based individuals godless heathen.

Chapter 5 is entitled: Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage.

Which includes such quotes as: “marriage is a picture of God’s own covenantal faithfulness.” That’s one example of what I mean by Mohler and his intended audience putting more meaning into what is actually being said. They see God -- and this is Biblical -- being “married” to His creation - namely, us.

It makes sense, even if you don’t believe in God. Practically speaking, nature is ‘married to’ and unified with what becomes of it. Ascribe to nature the consciousness of a god as described in the Bible, and the male/female element is brought into it - God=male and creation=female. (Actually a better analogy would be God as the parents -- both male and female -- and creation as its children.)

But fortunately for those who subscribe to the doctrine of testosterone, God was designed as a He, with a penis.

And again with the “danger” theme, in that marriage protects us from the “inevitable disaster that follows when sexual passions are divorced from their rightful place.” What is the “inevitable disaster” of which he speaks? Well, imagine the ideal marriage, one where the husband responsibly takes care of his wife and children. Now imagine a man who squanders his “God given” sexual desire by choosing to wank it to porn every day, who thus, has no need to improve himself to find a wife, and thus, no need to reflect the image of God in regard to his sexuality.

Now, a few things. What Mohler’s basically describing here is an addiction to porn, but he characterizes this scenario as a choice of lust over love, what became clear to me as I was reading through the depiction of this man, was that he was in this position because he was never able to find a partner to begin with. It had nothing to do with choice, it was because he was ugly, obese, mentally ill, or whatever, but at this point, he’s let himself go and couldn’t find a date if he wanted to, and the only way for him to abate his sexual frustration, was through pornography.

Perhaps Mohler knows of situations like that where the guy could indeed go out and find a mate, but the point is, he doesn’t clarify. And that’s a significant portion of my complaint with this book - what is NOT said.

The example of porn addiction -- an often times rightful concern -- is used by Mohler for his own agenda: “To abuse this gift is to weaken not only the institution of marriage but the fabric of civilization itself.”

He ends the chapter with: “The damage done to that man’s heart is beyond measure, and the cost in human misery will only be made clear on the Day of Judgment.”

I would offer to Mr. Mohler that the “damage” in question isn’t due to his porn addiction, but due to the low self esteem that caused it. Namely, a sexually repressive society that’s fostered and sustained by needle butts like you.

Furthermore, If you’re that concerned about any damage that may be the result of his porn addiction, you may want to buy a computer and learn how to operate a search engine before the “Day of Judgment,” as I’m sure there studies that have already been done on the subject, which might be helpful in your ministry to people like that.

And now the moment we’ve all been waiting for:

Chapter 6 Homosexuality in the Theological Perspective: The Roots of a Movement

Just to get some crap out of the way…

This book is 160 pages long, this chapter is 7 pages long, and the first 3 pages use the word “homosexuality” or some derivative thereof, a total of 23 times. Phrases like “Homosexual activist groups” … “special protections” “secular academy…capitulated…[to the] homosexual movement” abound.

And let’s not forget about the HORROR of “mainstream media now portray[ing] homosexuality in a positive light.” “Openly homosexual characters” … “homoerotic images,” and “More distressing…Protestant mainline are debating…homosexuals to the ministry.”

The idea being conveyed of course, is that in reality, homosexuality is a negative thing. Thus, any positive portrayals of homosexual persons, must be a fabrication that has been carefully foisted upon an unsuspecting public by the mighty and invincible iron fisted homosexual empire.

But hold your socks, in addition to all that, “the movement has pushed for specific policy goals, such as the removal of all antisodomy laws.”

And if portraying as unreasonable, the "goal" of not wanting to be imprisoned for having sex wasn’t bad enough, he minimizes it by accusing us of wanting even more:

the goal is not merely the legitimization of homosexual activity or even the recognition of homosexual relationships. Rather, it is the creation of a public homosexual culture within the American mainstream.

But fortunately Mohler realizes that “this is a challenge evangelicals must not fail to meet with both grace and honesty.”

At this point he begins an all-out attempt to paint “secular society” as the culprit of “moral relativism.”

“From the Christian perspective, the most important category is truth,” he says. “a majority of American adults now reject the very notion of absolute truth.”

Meaning of course, that a majority of American adults reject the very notion that absolute truth is based on whatever you pull out of your ass authority (in this case the Bible) one arbitrarily chooses to appeal to. It goes on and on, the projection and baseless notions of morality are strewn throughout.

He conflates the concept of, and uses the word ‘moral’ with what should be the meaning of Christian (ie; the Golden Rule), at least three times in the last two pages of this chapter, with no qualification to back up the connection. It’s a constant theme and he does the same vice versa, secular = anything goes, homosexuality = not knowing right from wrong. It’s as though he things that if you puts the words and concepts in the same sentence or within close proximity, that they magically somehow come true. Which is essentially the definition of relativism. And given that his slander of LGBT Americans and LGBT human citizens at large are his main target, the use of relativism to make his case here, is decidedly immoral.

Mohler cites Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon’s use of the term “rights talk,” for the purpose of glibly reducing the human rights of same-gender attracted persons, as being nothing more than a political football:

Our collective moral imagination has shifted from matters of right and wrong to mere contests for your rights, my rights, and their rights.

Rights that apparently should be defined by him and those like him.

Chapter 7 begins with “Fundamental truths essential to the Christian faith are at stake in this confrontation.”

Interesting parsing of words, as faith, by its very nature, cannot be fundamental truth - except by faith. But it get’s better. He says: “Put bluntly, if the claims put forward by the homosexual movement are true, the entire system of the Christian faith is compromised, and some essential truths will fall.”

Like how he portrays the “homosexual movement” as the potential culprit responsible for bringing down the “Christian faith?” It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the consistent and proven hypocrisy and dishonesty that his “Christian” movement is notorious for.

Furthermore, Al, if your “entire system” of faith can be compromised by a truth of human sexuality, then that aspect of your faith doesn’t deserve to stand.

He then speaks of how the “homosexual movement has employed a well documented hermeneutic of suspicion toward biblical texts that address homosexuality.”

Now speaking for the ENTIRE homosexual movement, Mohler portrays very reasonable objections to the clobber passages as being without merit. Again, he does so without offering any refutation, just baseless assertion of error.

For example, he says that the “homosexual movement” attempts to claim that the Leviticus verses (20:13 and 18:22) and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, “do not refer to consensual homosexual acts but rather to homosexual rape and prostitution.”

First of all, all three verses, even within said homosexual context, only refer to men. He doesn’t even bother to acknowledge that in order for something to be objectively homosexual, it needs to include female homosexuality.

Yet he has the gall to flippantly mock the factual observation that the so-called homosexual aspect of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, was indeed about gang rape. Worse than that however, in my opinion, was that he completely ignored the fact that the hero of the story, Lot, willingly offered to give up his virgin daughters to be gang raped by the amorous mob at his door.

Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention, demonstrates no moral objection to a father who would willingly offer up his daughters to be gang raped, but makes it a point to publish, in a book, his objection to the observation that it is unfair to equate gang-rape with adult consensual homosexual intimacy.

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

They must be put to death;

their blood will be on their own heads.

I find it striking that Mr. Mohler was able to find it within his conscience to condemn the “homosexual movement” for its “hermeneutic of suspicion” in regard to this text, but not for God’s command to murder us.

He then goes into Romans 1:26-27, which, if you know anything about the clobber passages, is the only verse that also includes women in its supposed condemnation of homosexuality.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The contention is that because gays are rebelling against God’s created order of male and female union, we can then be assumed to possess all the qualities of a person with no conscience, as is described in the second paragraph above.

And true to form, the ever morally vapid Mohler seized upon this opportunity by then concluding that homosexuality is the “first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment.”

Thus the reasoning behind the accusations that gays are responsible for everything from wildfires to a bad economy.

Chapter 9 is entitled “Homosexuality in Theological Perspective,” in which he claims that “The Bible is unambiguous on the issue of homosexuality,” that Scripture is “inerrant and authoritative,” and is “unassailable ground.”